ICR Sues Texas

Yes Iread the article, it is very insightful, but it is a conceptulization of reality, not the reality or things, ideas as realityWhen you reduce the issues down to there logical form, the contrived definitions fall apart.Only logic and reason will help you at that point No its a logical explanation of reality, not termsDawn Bertot

Bullshit.It shows change over time, and that is the fact of evolution. Nor does the fact of Evolution have anything to do with any process.You really need to learn some of the very basics. Belief is irrelevant. Reality and truth do not care what you believe. And as I pointed out above, even if there was design it is irrelevant, worthless, unimportant. I do not believe in Evolution, I accept it as a conclusion. I'm sorry but that is just another of your content free statements, it has no meaning or relation to what I said or to the fact of EvolutionThere is no Theory of Creation or Theory of Design or evidence of a designer or evidence of design and your continued baseless assertions won't change those facts.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Its really very simple, its an observation of the natural order of chemical and biological processes working together and independently of each other to accomplish its desired and designed purpose, or appearent purposeThe evidence is as good for design by an observation and EXAMINATION of the naturalorder of things, s is evolution.Both will not be absolutley demonstratble, but both are evidential and fall within only two logical possibilitesIts really that simple. Both are scientific observationsDawn Bertot

I see that if you read the link you didn't understand it.

quote:

---

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

---

If the evidence is as good for design as evolution, how come no one publishes papers about this "theory"? How about showing some of this evidence for design? I dont mean evidence against evolution, I mean evidence FOR design.

The deal-breaker there would be "detached groups of researchers". In order to come up with a conclusion of design, you pretty much have to be attached to the presupposition of design.

He's already provided all the evidence he has. Twice! Why do you people refuse to acknowledge that?The evidence is that it looks designed. What more could you possibly want?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Since we swapping insults, I might add that you should learn the basics of simple reasoning, but that is beside theBelief is irrelevant. Reality and truth do not care what you believe. And as I pointed out above, even if there was design it is irrelevant, worthless, unimportant. I do not believe in Evolution, I accept it as a conclusion.[/qs]Please Jar, when I say belief I mean that which is knowable and demonstratable.What I said earlier about learning the basics of reasonning is now coming true. Jar you cannot accept the tenets of something without believing them to be accurate. Belief is just a word calm down Baseless assertions are not baseless assertions when they are based on the reality of order in the natural order of appearent design.Is it possible that it is not design, sure in the same way its possible the conclusions of evolution may not be absolutley true
or its conclusionsBut both seem to be accurate, given the amount and type of evidenceDawn Bertot

More word salad.There is no Theory of Design or Theory of Creationism.Until there is a model presented there is simply nothing that can be taught.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

My guess is that they do. Secondly, why would you publish an exrensive paper on whether trees exist or not. It should be obvious that they do exist. thats the problem here you want a simple, oservable, seemily demonstratable process to be complicated.The real question is it evidental in demonstrating its own validtiy and the question of a designer. Answer yesDawn Bertot

More wave of the hand debating. I dont likeit so it aint true.Here is the thing to be taught
DB writesI think you Jar have lost sight of the real issue, which is not that which can be proved absolutley. But that which is reasonable, demonstratable and teachable, based on the natural evidence, concering the theories about the origins of things and tht which should be included in the classroom.Design is not a theory only its a natural observationWord Salad is your way of saying I have no response or answerDawn Bertot

When people say that evolution is a fact they're referring to the progression of fossils in the geological column. That life has changed over time is so obvious an inference from this evidence that many prefer to call it a fact. Even though you do not consider this inference a fact, certainly this evidence is something we can both agree should be taught in science class.But the theories that are taught in science class are tentative inferences from the evidence and can never be considered facts. Consensus develops around theories with strong supporting evidence. Theories around which a strong consensus has developed are what is taught in science class.The proper path that creationism or ID should take to the science class is to work toward becoming accepted as part of the scientific consensus.--Percy

Again, that is not a theory or even a hypothesis.It is also nothing there to teach that is not being taught now. We teach chemistry and biology.If they explain what we see then there is no need of throwing in some imaginary designer.If you want some designer included then you need to present the evidence showing how the designer controls or changes normal chemical and biological processes.So far you have failed to show either a model that includes those designer processes or even any evidence there is some designer.Bring the designer in and put it on the lab table or present a model that actually includes more than word salad and perhaps you may have something worth examining.The important thing is that "the Designer" is really unimportant. Once the methods and processes are understood the designer simply becomes a footnote.It does not matter who designed the first radio, the first internal combustion engine, the first airplane, the first bubblegum.What is important is understanding the process.Once we understand how a radio or internal combustion engine or airplane or bubblegum can be made, it is irrelevant who did it first. What should be taught is how those things can be made.And that is exactly what gets taught today. How evolution can create the diversity we see around us.Until you can show how the so called designer manipulates chemistry and physics there is no worth in the concept to teach.Even if there was a designer, once we understand the process used to control chemistry and physics, the designer gets relegated to footnote status and again, there is nothing to teach but the science, the process.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's because it's so logical and matter of fact according to real life. What is designed and created does not require elitist complicated mathmatical and theoretical concocted assumptions to explain. It is how observed things complex in real life come to be; by planning and intelligently designed work.Most of what we observe in (abe: here and now) real life tends towards chaos, decay, corrosion, extermination, non-complexity and disorder when void of intelligent design and management. Secularist minded science elitists tend to theorize their way around realism so as to avoid accountability to a higher power. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ICR would probably tend to agree with you, and this anti-science attitude combined with appeals to a higher power were probably significant contributors to Texas's decision to deny ICR accreditation.--Percy

More word salad.Please present the Theory of Creation or the Theory of Design and then we can see if it explains what is seen as well as the current theories. Present the method that is used by the asserted designer to control normal chemical and biological reactions.Once we know the method then we can assign a footnote to your designer. Why do you keep repeating falsehoods, absurd ones at least.I am accountable to that higher authority so once again your point is refuted.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!